Disturbances

June 14, 2001

https://www.smartertimes.com/448/disturbances

When is a riot merely a "disturbance"? When the victims are Jews and the paper is the New York Times. An article on the front of the metro section of today's New York Times reports that "Aside from crime, Mayor Dinkins had alienated many Jewish voters over the Crown Heights disturbances." "Disturbances" was the governmental euphemism that the Cuomo administration used in commissioning a report on the riot. But even that report said, "the rioting represented the most extensive racial unrest in New York City in over twenty years. It differed from most other disturbances throughout the turbulent 1960s... as the violence was directed at one segment of the population." The Cuomo-commissioned report called it rioting; the Giuliani administration has called it rioting; Yankel Rosenbaum was chased by a mob of 20 and murdered after one of them shouted "There's a Jew; get the Jew." The Times calls it a "disturbance."

In his 1999 memoir, the executive editor of the Times at the time of the Crown Heights riot, Max Frankel, confesses, "I did not give enough prominence, however, to the rioting in 1991, when bands of black youths, shouting, 'Kill the Jews!' ran wild in Crown Heights. They accosted Hasidim and policemen and fatally stabbed a rabbinical student from Australia who had the misfortune of crossing their path." Mr. Frankel referred to the Times's coverage of the riot as among the "major news failures of my editorship." Apparently, the Times has failed to take Mr. Frankel's critique to heart going forward, as it is still referring to the riots as mere "disturbances."

Can't Spell: A front-page article in this morning's New York Times reports on President Bush's nominee to be America's ambassador at the United Nations. The Times reports that "Former Secretary of State George P. Schulz is backing the appointment." If the paper is going to go to the trouble to include Mr. Shultz's middle initial, it could also go to the trouble to spell his last name correctly. It has no "c," but it does have a "t." This is at least the second time in less than a year that the Times has mangled Mr. Shultz's name; Smartertimes.com pointed out the mistake in its September 30, 2000, edition.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free smartertimes.com mailing list